Skip to comments.Fox News anchor on Newt Gingrich: ‘Now I’m sure’ he’s delusional
Posted on 05/02/2012 6:40:49 PM PDT by VinL
Fox News anchor Shep Smith, with the help of GOP veteran Ed Rollins, gave a brutal review of Newt Gingrichs exit from the Republican presidential race sure to exacerbate the feud between Gingrich and the conservative cable news network.
Says Rollins: He epitomhttpized the sore loser. This is a tough game, but he epitomized the sore loser.
Said Smith, harkening back to the beginning of Gingrichs campaign: I thought then he was delusional, and now Im sure.
See for yourself, via the Daily Caller:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
The answer to that stupid question is "I never said that." I've answered your question now.
Oh my goodness TigersEye. I was in a middle of a one-on-one with Tau Food and mistook your reply to me as his/hers for the last quarter hour and continued on as though you were him/her.
Mea culpa. My apologies.
OK, now you can answer my question in #54.
I was thinking the same thing.
Perhaps when Tau Food returns (apologies again to TigersEye), there will be an opportunity to explore this in this case.
I’m sorry to be so late in my response, but I had to eat.
If Romney is nominated,I believe he will come up short. I will be voting, but I will not vote for Obama or Romney. it sounds as if you will be unhappy if Obama wins. I do appreciate that. In return, please try to appreciate that I will be unhappy if either Obama or Romney wins. And, I will not be made happier by voting for either of them.
My answer is in my reply to your question, thinking it was Tau Food, second paragraph.
Which will make you least unhappy/most happy: Obama wins or Romney wins?
You're still full of crap. I went back through a full page of his posts, to March 12th, and apart from repeatedly saying he trusts in God he never said an 0bama victory would be the best outcome and never used the phrase "at all costs."
After my faux pax I deserve a few free shots from you. But: Check again.
"President Romney would be far worse than Obama."
"Romney must be defeated at all costs."
Sheez, now I’m making faux pas about faux pax...
Sorry, it’s late for me.
Perhaps the root of our disagreement involves a belief on your part that you are more sensitive than me concerning subtle gradations of evil.
Or, perhaps you just like Romney.
I have refrained from telling you how to vote and I don’t recall asking for your advice as to how I should vote or whether I should vote at all in this election. I will tell you that if you are trying to drum up votes for Romney, you could more profitably use your time trying to persuade someone else.
I’m not a Romney Republican.
If you wish to know the root of our disagreement, watch Andrew Breitbart’s speech again.
Hint: The gradation of evil is far from subtle.
I think God expects us to have at least this much discernment.
Thank you for your supportive post. Yes, it can be frustrating, but I do try to remain respectful.
President Romney would be far worse than Obama. At least, the RINOs wont support Obamas programs. The RINOs will support Obama-like programs pushed by a President Romney.
I agree with it completely. The logic is obvious. Pushing liberal policies and nominees from a Republican presidency will make it easier to get them passed.
Well, I’m pleased to see that we share the goal of conforming our actions to God’s will, even if we might disagree about what that requires.
I feel the need to sleep now. Vaya con Dios, mi amigo.
I’m not so interested in happiness or unhappiness, be it caused by Obama or Romney. The greater point I was making is that another Obama term won’t bring us a conservative charging in to rescue us. It’s the same old story conservatives have been telling each other since the days of pappy Bush. When McCain ran the only reason I voted for him was Sarah. I was fully prepared to sit out the election, thinking a fraud like Obama couldn’t possibly serve more than one term, but here we are, all the same reasoning all over again. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed your dinner.
No problem, I have no ground to stand on reading errors tonight. However...
I have to say your and Tau Food logic fails.
“RINOs wont support Obamas programs”
For many of the biggies, Obamacare for example, it doesn’t matter anymore, it passed by Dems and was signed by Obama. Til law unless repealed or deemed unconsitutional. It keeps on rolling unless congress stops it.
That’s where we are. I don’t think it logical that Obamacare legislation is in greater danger if the Obama regime remains in power. He’s not gonna sign its repeal.
Romney is campaigning on repeal, congressional candidates across the country are making repeal a key issue in their election. Congress writes and passes legislation, the president signs or vetos (or pocket vetoes). If we have majorities in both houses, I will bet dimes to donuts that repeal of Obamacare comes out as legislation.
We both agree on the need for strong conservatives in congress. Obama’s veto pen can thwart that (just as the dem Senate thwarted the GOP house.)
It is extremely illogical to think keeping the Obama regime in power will result in less liberal legislation - that already passed and that yet passed.
Well I guess so but I never proffered that premise and I don't think the other poster did either.
I’m sorry, then I misunderstood again.
I thought “President Romney would be far worse than Obama” and what followed was saying just this. “keeping the Obama regime in power will result in less liberal legislation”